Fish Explorer Logo
Colorado Fishing
Colorado Fishing
Login Usr:Psd:
Don't have an account? Register now...
spacer spacer
Go back to Main FxR Forum listings

2014 fishing regulations and more

Post By: opencage      Posted: 11/15/2013 1:34:32 PM     Points: 135992    
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission approved the 2014 fishing regulations. Read the release here: [log in for link]
 Reply by: culinarypunk      Posted: 11/16/2013 8:24:44 AM     Points: 82821    
I think its good to add the cuttbow and tiger to the game fish list.
But, why even allow harvest of the tigers???
 Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher      Posted: 11/16/2013 12:57:13 PM     Points: 77    
culinary, why not allow harvest of tiger trout?
 Reply by: Mr.Pink      Posted: 11/16/2013 12:59:58 PM     Points: 427    
They're sterile and expensive to stock. Why keep them? They don't taste any different than the less expensive stockers...
 Reply by: Opry99er      Posted: 11/16/2013 1:21:37 PM     Points: 595    
Glad to see the Cutbow as a gamefish.

Tigers should be protected until they can get a bit larger, I think. They are primarily stocked to keep brook populations down, and they can't do that if we take them out before they're big enough to do their job.

Still, this is a step in the right direction.
 Reply by: culinarypunk      Posted: 11/16/2013 8:36:47 PM     Points: 82821    
Kingfisher, what' they said!
I don't understand why CO has such a hard time with good and well explained regs.
 Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher      Posted: 11/17/2013 8:05:34 AM     Points: 77    
I can see the rationale in the fact that tigers are expensive and unproductive however these are better considerations for the overall utility of stocking these hybrids in the first place.

I have heard the assertion that tigers are highly piscivorous and agressive, thus a good option for slowing down populations of so-called less desirable fish like grayling. However there are a number of highly predacious species that also would satisfy this need.

My point is simply it or of the most fundamental reasons for recreational angling is to harvest fish for the table, and all fisherman wheather or not they keep any fish ever, still benefit from revenue provided to agencies like the dow for this purpose....I will concede that c&r is growing by leaps and bounds and someday (perhaps), harvest of gamefish will be a thing of the past, however this is not the case today, and I would not support any regulation prohibiting all take of any one particular game fish, especially one that is an entirely unnecessary and expensive lab experiment.

 Reply by: culinarypunk      Posted: 11/17/2013 10:23:05 AM     Points: 82821    
Heard that kingfisher
I really feel that there are some fish that should never be kept, I also like seasons and dates.
 Reply by: Freestone303      Posted: 11/17/2013 2:24:42 PM     Points: 442    
"....I will concede that c&r is growing by leaps and bounds and someday (perhaps), harvest of gamefish will be a thing of the past,... "

That may actually create a less desirable fishery than one that is full of fish. Honestly, even though I enjoy catching small fish, if that's all there was, I for one would get burned out really fast.
 Reply by: catchn      Posted: 11/17/2013 4:46:57 PM     Points: 218    

It's a cool fish, a good fighter and something different then the same old RBT that's stocked a gazillion places. Do you like to catch big fish? Being sterile they grow quickly and if there was a no take policy on these fish they get to trophy size quicker than other trout. That (to me) is the best reason of all not to harvest them.

 Reply by: elkinthebag      Posted: 11/17/2013 4:59:11 PM     Points: 1904    
Considering they only stock the sterile hybrids in lakes that need them cause they have a big over population of smaller ussaly undisirable fish they are being used as a tool. I would rather have catch and release regs on them instead of them killing a lake all together and trying to restart it. Plus being sterile they won't over take a lake like carp, pike and lakers.
 Reply by: shiverfix      Posted: 11/17/2013 7:22:18 PM     Points: 3384    

It is better to manage an overpopulated or unwanted fish population through predator stocking and management, than through killing the lake. Using sterile hybrids allows for controlled management using fish that are highly piscivorous but can't breed and cause issues of their own. I'm not trying to start an argument about the value of any fish (I love fishing for pike), but examples of fish that were used for population (or plant) control that have caused issues in some fisheries are lake trout, pike,and carp. Examples of sterile hybrids used are tiger musky, splake, wipers, and tiger trout. Tiger musky are currently managed through size limits, as are wipers in some waters.

The reason tiger trout are an important tool is due to their ability to thrive in the same waters in which brook trout thrive. Splake and muskies are not suited to smaller, high water lakes.

Since size limits are used extensively for many game fish, even harvesters have to practice catch and release in many waters: walleyes under 18" and any over 21" if a fish over 21" has been kept have to be released at Chatfield for example. I don't really see the difference in that and regulating the harvest of tiger trout.
 Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher      Posted: 11/18/2013 10:25:21 AM     Points: 77    
Just a general response: I am not at all opposed to the DOW stocking tiger trout, or using them as a management someone posted before they are one of the coolest looking fish that swim and also offer great sport, which appropriately deserves their recognition as a 'game fish.'

And as is true with all game fish they are subject to limited harvest. No species (especially ones that entire existence is at the cost of those who buy licenses, permits, passes etc.) should recieve and exemption...for the simple fact, as mentioned before, harvest of game fish this is a very important element to why many anglers contribute revenue used for the preservation of our public fisheries.
 Reply by: shiverfix      Posted: 11/18/2013 10:39:26 AM     Points: 3384    
Well, then how about this? Make the size limit on tiger trout 36" (:
 Reply by: Bassackwards      Posted: 11/18/2013 10:44:01 AM     Points: 1640    
This is why I don't want any Tiger trout taken out.

[log in for link]

Oh Yeah!
 Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher      Posted: 11/18/2013 12:27:02 PM     Points: 77    
Bassackwards....that is an awesome fish, I have never seen one that big before...however that is not supportive of a catch & release only came out of a fishery that allows limited harvest, in this case a slot.
 Reply by: Bassackwards      Posted: 11/18/2013 12:52:03 PM     Points: 1640    
I am 100% for slots and seasons. I wish Colorado would adopt this way of keeping populations in check, I would be thrilled to see a no take policy when fish are in spawn, and slot limits for keeping fish.

I just want a shot at catching a Tiger like that one. I know that these fish are taken out of this reservoir for consumption, but remember these fish are a little more established than the ones we have. By established I mean stocked. I know they do not reproduce.
 Reply by: kid15      Posted: 11/18/2013 1:01:00 PM     Points: 24    
If only there was only native fish in colorado then wouldnt need all these different species of fish.
 Reply by: shiverfix      Posted: 11/18/2013 1:20:47 PM     Points: 3384    
kid, if there were only native species in Colorado then we wouldn't be sport fishing on the front range, and the only thing to catch in the mountains would be cutthroat trout.
 Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher      Posted: 11/18/2013 1:54:54 PM     Points: 77    
bassackwards, we agree about slots. I believe that slots and other regulations can be a very effective means to have the best of both class fishing opportunity with the option for limited harvest.

I will say that in most places across the state, the DOW or CPW does a very good job of management, of course wildlife management is not an exact science nor will it ever be, but I am of the opinion that CO offers some of the best fresh water fishing for a wide diversity of species...albeit most of which are not native.
 Reply by: culinarypunk      Posted: 11/18/2013 2:09:44 PM     Points: 82821    
Kingfisher, you ever get up to wy, UT, mt to fish?
 Reply by: Kolorado KingFisher      Posted: 11/18/2013 3:50:12 PM     Points: 77    
I live in Northern Colorado and I occasionally make it to Wyoming, I have never fished Utah and only once in my life have I fished doubt there are many places in the west that harbor monster fish, the difference with Colorado is that there are 5 million people in the state all fishing the same waters....of course the trade off is that Colorado has much more access and more public water than does Montana, Wyo.
 Reply by: Opry99er      Posted: 11/18/2013 3:58:24 PM     Points: 595    
Even if we put the minimum length at 28 inches for Tigers, would that allow them time to "do their job," so to speak?

There are obviously no 28" tigers in Coloado (yet) but I'd sure love to see it come to that...

My fear is that people will keep limits and the population won't ever get over 16-18" on a consistent basis.

I say make the minimum length 24 or 28 inches... It should take a couple years before there are a bunch that size available for harvest.
 Reply by: Bassackwards      Posted: 11/18/2013 5:34:54 PM     Points: 1640    

If we only had native species to fish for here in Colorado...I would be golfing.
 Reply by: catchn      Posted: 11/18/2013 5:45:56 PM     Points: 218    
"Bassackwards....that is an awesome fish, I have never seen one that big before...however that is not supportive of a catch & release only came out of a fishery that allows limited harvest, in this case a slot."

Just curious how is it not supportive of C&R? If someone harvisted that fish anytime before it was caught in that picture it would not have been that big,... Thus a C&R argument is ABSOLUTELY supported by a fish that big.

I'm all for healthy debate KKF but now you are just spouting off things as a devils advocate that don't make any sense???

Back to top...